I don't have a problem with taking them a defenseman at the 8th slot. The three teams above them in the draft (Toronto, Anaheim, and Minnesota) all could have used offense (Forsberg) and opted for defense instead. You have to go best available player there regardless of position. Now you can argue whether Pouliot was the best defenseman available at that point. I personally hoped they would have drafted Jacob Trouba instead. He is bigger than Pouliot, a willing hitter, is probably better in his own end right now, but doesn't have the offensive upside. Pouliot seems like Goligoski version 2, which isn't bad if we can trade him for version 2 of James Neal in 3 years or so.

It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

pens_CT wrote:I don't have a problem with taking them a defenseman at the 8th slot. The three teams above them in the draft (Toronto, Anaheim, and Minnesota) all could have used offense (Forsberg) and opted for defense instead. You have to go best available player there regardless of position. Now you can argue whether Pouliot was the best defenseman available at that point. I personally hoped they would have drafted Jacob Trouba instead. He is bigger than Pouliot, a willing hitter, is probably better in his own end right now, but doesn't have the offensive upside. Pouliot seems like Goligoski version 2, which isn't bad if we can trade him for version 2 of James Neal in 3 years or so.

3 year?!? Try 7. That's how long Whitney and Goligoski took to develop and trade. It just shows how poor our european scouting really is that we couldn't even take the #1 rated European player when available. And none of those teams you listed had the defensive prospect depth going into the draft that the Pens already had. And to top it off the Pens had literally just acquired yet another highly rated D prospect seconds before the pick. Pouliot could very well end up being a fantastic player and I actually do really like him. I'm more upset though to see the Pens squander rare opportunities like this and continue to ignore our lack of high end prospects at forward. Now we have to pray that we caught lightning with one of our other forward picks, just like every other year.

Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?

One thing I think people miss is when Shero talks best player available he is talking about who, he and his scouts decide is best player available not rating agency, not the media, who the scouts and talent emulators decide.

Just because Shero got the 8th ick shouldn't change the way you draft, they saw this kid play a ton because of morrow and like what he brings to the table

Why are we complaining about something that happens like a month ago? Seriously let it go already

Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?

That's a misleading statement. It took three years to develop Whitney. He came into the NHL three years after being drafted. The Penguins chose to trade him 7 years after drafting him. There's a big difference. Goligoski took four years to make it to the NHL permanently, and then spent 2.5 seasons with the Penguins before they chose to trade him.

Just because it took the Penguins roughly 7 years to trade these two doesn't mean it took the Penguins seven years to develop their talent to the point that they could be traded. In fact, the opposite could be said of Whitney, who seemed to be declining at the time the Penguins traded him.

With the amount of money defensemen are making now, it's really difficult to argue against stockpiling defense prospects with aspirations of trading them down the line. These are the perfect types of players to land a big-name player at the trade deadline, as teams generally aren't looking to take on salary at that point.

As for Forsberg, after speaking with Mikey about him, he seems a bit like an Esposito in that his stock has fallen quite a bit...to the point that it will be years before he makes it to the NHL, if he ever does. So, would you rather the Penguins take a risk on a falling stock or take the sure-shot, rising stock?

It's funny how many people rag on Shero for his "poor drafting" with the Esposito pick, but at the time raved about how awesome of a pick that was.

Whose to say we dont strike a deal for a forward prospect with one of our d prospects? I mean.. there are plenty of ways to fill holes in an organization.. Maybe they just didnt like Forsberg? Maybe we don't have a big enough scouting presence in certain parts of the world.. After the deal RS swung for Neal I don't see how anyone can argue with the strategy if it is infact build D assets and trade.. GoGo was a #5 dman here who if I remember correctly was quite frequently the whipping boy for his turnovers and he was turned into a top line 40 goal scorer..

Fire0nice228 wrote:Whose to say we dont strike a deal for a forward prospect with one of our d prospects? I mean.. there are plenty of ways to fill holes in an organization.. Maybe they just didnt like Forsberg? Maybe we don't have a big enough scouting presence in certain parts of the world.. After the deal RS swung for Neal I don't see how anyone can argue with the strategy if it is infact build D assets and trade.. GoGo was a #5 dman here who if I remember correctly was quite frequently the whipping boy for his turnovers and he was turned into a top line 40 goal scorer..

Agreed. But remember its not like we can trade one of our defensive prospects for James Neal every time that is my biggest concern. Part of the reason we got Neal is because he was not fitting in really well in Dallas. 25 goal scorer sure but they were not 100% thrilled with him there. Those types of trades are not available every day. Plus, as for now nobody is going to trade for a defensive prospect without an NHL ready forward thrown in there and we have no one that really fits the bill as it may be 2 or 3 years before we can one up one of our d guys assuming they progress.

Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?

That's a misleading statement. It took three years to develop Whitney. He came into the NHL three years after being drafted. The Penguins chose to trade him 7 years after drafting him. There's a big difference. Goligoski took four years to make it to the NHL permanently, and then spent 2.5 seasons with the Penguins before they chose to trade him.

Just because it took the Penguins roughly 7 years to trade these two doesn't mean it took the Penguins seven years to develop their talent to the point that they could be traded. In fact, the opposite could be said of Whitney, who seemed to be declining at the time the Penguins traded him.

With the amount of money defensemen are making now, it's really difficult to argue against stockpiling defense prospects with aspirations of trading them down the line. These are the perfect types of players to land a big-name player at the trade deadline, as teams generally aren't looking to take on salary at that point.

As for Forsberg, after speaking with Mikey about him, he seems a bit like an Esposito in that his stock has fallen quite a bit...to the point that it will be years before he makes it to the NHL, if he ever does. So, would you rather the Penguins take a risk on a falling stock or take the sure-shot, rising stock?

It's funny how many people rag on Shero for his "poor drafting" with the Esposito pick, but at the time raved about how awesome of a pick that was.

It also takes many highly ranked forwards 3-5 years to become NHL ready.

Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?

That's a misleading statement. It took three years to develop Whitney. He came into the NHL three years after being drafted. The Penguins chose to trade him 7 years after drafting him. There's a big difference. Goligoski took four years to make it to the NHL permanently, and then spent 2.5 seasons with the Penguins before they chose to trade him.

Just because it took the Penguins roughly 7 years to trade these two doesn't mean it took the Penguins seven years to develop their talent to the point that they could be traded. In fact, the opposite could be said of Whitney, who seemed to be declining at the time the Penguins traded him.

What do you think the term "developing" means? It took 7 years to trade those players from the time they were drafted. There is nothing misleading about that statement, it's simply a fact. The whole "lets trade a d prospect for forward" only works if that player can play effectively in the NHL.

Defence21 wrote:With the amount of money defensemen are making now, it's really difficult to argue against stockpiling defense prospects with aspirations of trading them down the line. These are the perfect types of players to land a big-name player at the trade deadline, as teams generally aren't looking to take on salary at that point.

While this line of thought is not wrong, it assumes a lot of things going right for a franchise to be in the position to do so. It also reflects poorly on our scouting staff's (in)ability to spot forward talent. Someday (now?) it will pay to have a highly rated forward prospect on an entry-level deal and not on his 2nd contract or later.

Defence21 wrote:As for Forsberg, after speaking with Mikey about him, he seems a bit like an Esposito in that his stock has fallen quite a bit...to the point that it will be years before he makes it to the NHL, if he ever does. So, would you rather the Penguins take a risk on a falling stock or take the sure-shot, rising stock?

It's funny how many people rag on Shero for his "poor drafting" with the Esposito pick, but at the time raved about how awesome of a pick that was.

That's a heck of a logical leap to call Forsberg a possible bust, or even a falling stock. Most scouts considered him to be the safest pick among forwards this draft (i.e. very little chance of bust). And his rating never changed - he was the top rated euro forward prospect all throughout the season). He'll be in the NHL by the 13-14 season. Yes, offensive d-men are all the rage right now, but so were Eric Lindros clones in the mid-90's. As were Russian forwards in the late 90's (whoops). We'll at least have a front seat view of how this turns out.

pens_CT wrote:I don't have a problem with taking them a defenseman at the 8th slot. The three teams above them in the draft (Toronto, Anaheim, and Minnesota) all could have used offense (Forsberg) and opted for defense instead. You have to go best available player there regardless of position. Now you can argue whether Pouliot was the best defenseman available at that point. I personally hoped they would have drafted Jacob Trouba instead. He is bigger than Pouliot, a willing hitter, is probably better in his own end right now, but doesn't have the offensive upside. Pouliot seems like Goligoski version 2, which isn't bad if we can trade him for version 2 of James Neal in 3 years or so.

3 year?!? Try 7. That's how long Whitney and Goligoski took to develop and trade. It just shows how poor our european scouting really is that we couldn't even take the #1 rated European player when available. And none of those teams you listed had the defensive prospect depth going into the draft that the Pens already had. And to top it off the Pens had literally just acquired yet another highly rated D prospect seconds before the pick. Pouliot could very well end up being a fantastic player and I actually do really like him. I'm more upset though to see the Pens squander rare opportunities like this and continue to ignore our lack of high end prospects at forward. Now we have to pray that we caught lightning with one of our other forward picks, just like every other year.

How does not taking Forsberg show our poor European scouting? What if he's a bust & our euro scouts told Shero they didn't feel as highly about him?

Also, being the number 1 rated Euro in a draft year means jack squat. You could be the number 1 Euro but there could be 30 better North American prospects.

The forever draft defensemen and hope to develop them and trade them for forwards is not really a safe strategy at all. You need to find a willing partner. Maybe the Pens were trying to deal Goligoski for 2 years before the Neal trade finally came along. Its not dependable enough to assume you can fill any forward needs you have as an organization simply by always trading defensemen.

I actually can see how, taken with the fact that the Pens very rarely spend a top half of the draft pick on Europeans, I think the decision not to take Forsberg could a reflection upon the Pens' European scouting (or lack thereof). The majority is not always correct, but I am willing to bet that at least, at least 25 other NHL teams had Forsberg ranked higher than Pouliot. If the Pens didn't, its likely because they just didn't know him. Obviously at some point if he's there and your picking (#22?) you take him just because, but at a #8 overall, I can't imagine a team is going to go off of their board and take someone they don't know. It would be one thing if I believed that the Pens spent time looking at Forsberg and decided Pouliot was that good, but I believe it was more a case of Forsberg not even really being anywhere on their draft board.

Although, I will say, seeing Forsberg slip past the next few teams made me wonder a little bit about whether maybe he was a bit overrated by all of the draft projectors out there.

Not taking Forsberg makes no sense. Rated higher by the entire world and while neither player is ready now, Forsberg would have helped to fill a giant weakness in the system. There isn't an argument for not taking him. I guess you could argue that there is something they saw that others didn't see, but I think given their recent history its more likely that there is something there that the Pens didn't see.

Fire0nice228 wrote:It doesnt matter if we took Forsberg or not , he won't be in the NHL for a few years, if at all..by then we take one of our eleventy billion D men and trade him for an established forward as we all know. Either way works in the end..

Again, people seem to forget that it took 7 years to develop each of Whitney and Goligoski. The only player D we have with enough experience tobe traded for a high return is Letang. Maybe that is the long-term strategy, but do we really want to trade one of the best D-men in the league?

That's a misleading statement. It took three years to develop Whitney. He came into the NHL three years after being drafted. The Penguins chose to trade him 7 years after drafting him. There's a big difference. Goligoski took four years to make it to the NHL permanently, and then spent 2.5 seasons with the Penguins before they chose to trade him.

Just because it took the Penguins roughly 7 years to trade these two doesn't mean it took the Penguins seven years to develop their talent to the point that they could be traded. In fact, the opposite could be said of Whitney, who seemed to be declining at the time the Penguins traded him.

What do you think the term "developing" means? It took 7 years to trade those players from the time they were drafted. There is nothing misleading about that statement, it's simply a fact. The whole "lets trade a d prospect for forward" only works if that player can play effectively in the NHL.

Defence21 wrote:With the amount of money defensemen are making now, it's really difficult to argue against stockpiling defense prospects with aspirations of trading them down the line. These are the perfect types of players to land a big-name player at the trade deadline, as teams generally aren't looking to take on salary at that point.

While this line of thought is not wrong, it assumes a lot of things going right for a franchise to be in the position to do so. It also reflects poorly on our scouting staff's (in)ability to spot forward talent. Someday (now?) it will pay to have a highly rated forward prospect on an entry-level deal and not on his 2nd contract or later.

Defence21 wrote:As for Forsberg, after speaking with Mikey about him, he seems a bit like an Esposito in that his stock has fallen quite a bit...to the point that it will be years before he makes it to the NHL, if he ever does. So, would you rather the Penguins take a risk on a falling stock or take the sure-shot, rising stock?

It's funny how many people rag on Shero for his "poor drafting" with the Esposito pick, but at the time raved about how awesome of a pick that was.

That's a heck of a logical leap to call Forsberg a possible bust, or even a falling stock. Most scouts considered him to be the safest pick among forwards this draft (i.e. very little chance of bust). And his rating never changed - he was the top rated euro forward prospect all throughout the season). He'll be in the NHL by the 13-14 season. Yes, offensive d-men are all the rage right now, but so were Eric Lindros clones in the mid-90's. As were Russian forwards in the late 90's (whoops). We'll at least have a front seat view of how this turns out.

I'm not going to respond in line with quotes, as I don't have the time, but I'll respond quickly to each of your statements...

1. Why do you assume that Whitney and Goligoski were with the Penguins solely to be traded? Trades aren't hinged on stages of development. In other words, why do you assume the Penguins traded Whitney and Goligoski immediately at the conclusion of their development? Just because they were traded 7 years after being drafted doesn't mean they didn't have significant value earlier. Instead, it's more likely a case of the Penguins wanting them to play for the Penguins rather than another team -- but when offense proved to be a necessity and depth on defense proved to be a strong point, these players were traded. For example, by your logic, the Penguins still haven't developed Crosby, Malkin, Letang, etc. -- after all, they haven't yet been traded, right?

2. Whether the scouting staff has the ability to recognize offensive talent is not for me to judge. I'm not an expert on prospects and simply rely on those whom I trust to provide me with legitimate information. That being said, it absolutely would be nice to have some top-notch entry-level forwards climbing the ranks. That being said, I'm not a fan of taking players based on position. I'm about collecting the best possible assets. It would have been a shame to see the Penguins select Bobby Ryan instead of Crosby because they wanted a right winger. Just saying...

3. As for Forsberg, I never called him a bust. It hasn't even been a month since the draft. That being said, there are very knowledgeable people out there who are questioning Forsberg's ability to translate his game to the NHL. In February, he was ranked the third best draft-eligible player, according to ISS. I even read a quote to the effect of "Though Forsberg ranks third, it wouldn't be at all surprising to hear his name called first overall in June." He went 11th. Either 10 NHL teams have terrible scouts and can't read scouting reports, or there are some concerns with Forsberg's game. From Michael Farkas in a conversation with me: "Forsberg isn't any sort of special prospect, so no, he won't be in Washington this year. He's still 17 for a little bit too, he's one of the youngest prospects taken. His team is still stuck in second-tier Sweden (Allsvenskan), so he's definitely not ready. He's at least a couple years away, if he makes it at all."

Idoit40fans wrote:Not taking Forsberg makes no sense. Rated higher by the entire world and while neither player is ready now, Forsberg would have helped to fill a giant weakness in the system. There isn't an argument for not taking him. I guess you could argue that there is something they saw that others didn't see, but I think given their recent history its more likely that there is something there that the Pens didn't see.

I don't profess to know much about the draft. That's the speciality of Jesse Marshall and Michael Farkas, and I generally defer to them for answers to my questions. But, logically speaking, isn't it a bit odd that 10 teams passed on a player who was ranked so highly by the ISS? We're not talking about a sleeper who was taken off the board and panned out. We're talking about a player who was ranked very highly and dropped 8 spots. That surely isn't a definitive answer to how he will develop -- but it says a lot that so many teams felt that he wasn't nearly as valuable as his ISS ranking suggested. Heck, he's not even playing in the top-tier Swedish league...